Port knocking - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org

To mitigate the effort to maintain my personal server, I am considering to only expose ssh port to the outside and use its socks proxy to reach other services. is Portknocking enough to reduce surface of attack to the minimum?

  • this_is_routerEnglish
    32•1 year ago

    Because then:

    • you also need to know the correct username
    • audits and logging shows which user used sudo to gain root access
    • @ShortN0te@lemmy.mlEnglish
      -21•1 year ago
      • you also need to know the correct username

      Use a secure password or key. Security by obscurity is no security.

      • audits and logging shows which user used sudo to gain root access

      That is not the point that was made. Once access to sudo or root you already have lost.

      • @False@lemmy.worldEnglish
        20•1 year ago

        You’re making it that much easier for someone to brute force logging in or to exploit a known vulnerability. If you have a separate root password (which you should) an attacker needs to get through two passwords to do anything privileged.

        This has been considered an accepted best practice for 20+ years and there’s little reason not to do it anyways. You shouldn’t be running things as root directly regardless.

        • @ShortN0te@lemmy.mlEnglish
          -4•1 year ago

          When you have secure passwords kr key auth. Brute force is not a problem. What vulnerability are you talking about? Complete auth bypass? Then the username would be no problem either since you can just brute force usernames.

      • @surewhynotlem@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10•1 year ago

        Security though obscurity, BY ITSELF, is not security. But it’s great at slowing attackers and thwarting automated scripts.

        It’s bad security to ignore possible mitigations to a problem just because it isn’t as full fix.